Delhi District Court
Dalip Singh S/O Sh. Kale Ram vs C.B.I on 13 December, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Appeal No.12/2006
Unique Case ID No.02402R0590942006
Dalip Singh S/o Sh. Kale Ram
R/o Village Mujesar, Mohalla Sarai,
H.No.18B, District Faridabad,
Haryana. ... Appellant
VERSUS
C.B.I. .... Respondent
Date of Institution : 20.10.2006
Date of order reserved : 27.11.2010
Date of order : 13.12.2010
Crl. Appeal No.13/2006
Unique Case ID No.02402R0610202006
Sukhdev Singh S/o Late Sh. Karnail Singh
R/o Flat No.129, Sector3, Pocket25,
Rohini, Delhi. ... Appellant
VERSUS
C.B.I. .... Respondent
C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 1 of 16
Date of Institution : 01.11.2006
Date of order reserved : 27.11.2010
Date of order : 13.12.2010
Crl. Appeal No.14/2006
Unique Case ID No.02402R0680772006
Anwinder Singh S/o S. Jagjit Singh
R/o 9A, New Housing Board Colony,
Barnala Road, Sirsa, Haryana. ... Appellant
VERSUS
C.B.I. .... Respondent
Date of Institution : 01.12.2006
Date of order reserved : 27.11.2010
Date of order : 13.12.2010
O R D E R
Vide this common order, I shall dispose of three appeals filed by appellants, Dalip Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Anwinder Singh against common judgment of conviction dated 29.9.06 vide which Ld. M.M. convicted the appellant Dalip Singh under section 120B IPC and 380 IPC; appellant Sukhdev Singh was convicted for offences under sections 120B IPC, 419, 420 and 471 C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 2 of 16 IPC and appellant Anwinder Singh has been convicted for offences under sections 120B IPC, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. 2 A challenge has also been made to the impugned order on sentence dated 5.10.2006. Vide impugned order on sentence dated 5.10.2006, appellant Dalip Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for three months with fine of Rs.5000/ for offence under section 120 B IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo RI for one month. He has also been sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs.5000/ for offence under section 380 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further to undergo RI for three months. Appellant Sukhdev Singh has been sentenced to undergo RI for three months with fine of Rs.5000/ for offence under section 120 B IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo RI for one month. He has also been sentenced to undergo RI for two years each for offences under sections 419/420/471 IPC with fine of Rs.5000/ for each offence. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo RI for three months. Appellant Anwinder Singh has been sentenced to undergo RI for three months with fine of Rs.5000/ for offence under section 120B IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo RI for one month. He has also been C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 3 of 16 sentenced to undergo RI for two years each for offences under sections 419/420/468/471 IPC with fine of Rs.5000/ for each offence. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo RI for three months. All the sentences awarded to the convicts (hereinafter shall be referred to as appellants) were ordered to run concurrently.
3 Trial court record has been called. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Ld. PP for CBI and have carefully gone through the entire material available on record. 4 Facts leading to filing of present appeals are that CBI filed a chargesheet against the appellantsherein on allegations that during the period July 1992 to July 1993, appellants entered into a criminal conspiracy with the purpose of stealing a draft book containing 24 bank drafts bearing Nos.995827 to 995850 from State Bank of India, Faridabad. It was further alleged that appellants Sukhdev Singh and Anwinder Singh filled up the said stolen drafts fraudulently and got the same encashed illegally from various banks worth lacs of rupees. For the purpose of encashment of drafts, appellants opened bank accounts in fictitious names. It was also alleged that appellants used forged documents to open accounts in C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 4 of 16 fictitious names and thereby committed fraud with the banks. 5 Charges under aforesaid sections for which appellants were convicted, were framed against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and claimed trial. One more accused, namely, G.P. Singh was also charged along with the appellants, but since he stopped appearing in the court subsequent to framing of charges, after adopting due process, he was declared proclaimed offender. Thereafter, the CBI adduced its evidence and examined as many as 52 witnesses. Statements of appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Despite grant of opportunity for leading defence evidence, appellants failed to lead any defence evidence.
6 Present appeals have been preferred on the grounds that complaint in the present case did not name any of the appellants responsible for commission of offences; there is no evidence with regard to criminal conspiracy entered into between the appellants for commission of alleged offences; there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of witnesses; prosecution has failed to substantiate the allegations levelled against the appellants.
C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 5 of 16 7 It was alleged against appellant Dalip Singh that he was working as Peon/Messenger in State Bank of India, Faridabad, Haryana; he had stolen blank bank drafts and with connivance of appellants Sukhdev Singh and Anwinder Singh, committed forgery on the drafts and got them encashed by opening bank accounts in fictitious names by way of impersonation.
8 The complainant Sh. D.C. Goyal was examined as PW1. He deposed that in the year 1994, in the capacity of Chief Manager of State Bank of India, he sent a complaint dated 20.1.1994 Ex.PW1/A to the CBI.
9 In complaint Ex.PW1/A, it was mentioned that 24 blank drafts bearing Nos.MTL/B/995827 to 995850 were removed by some unknown person from State Bank of India Branch, Faridabad during September, 1992. It was further mentioned that the suspects opened accounts in different banks and after committing forgery on the drafts, got them encashed. It was further mentioned that forgery of signatures of bank officials was made on the drafts. Banks from where the drafts were got encashed could not trace their account holders. The fraud came to the knowledge of banks only when computer did not accept the stolen drafts for their having been C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 6 of 16 reported to be lost. It was further mentioned that a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.18.96 lacs was caused to the bank and fate of 13 blank drafts was not known to the bank.
10 PW2 Sh S.C. Dhingra has deposed that from 199194, he was posted as Passing Officer in C&I Division of Faridabad Branch of Bank. Drafts book containing drafts 995826 to 850 was given by the Accountant. On the next date, he handed over the said drafts book to Sh. K.N. Yaksh and Smt. Santosh Narang was the Draft Issuing Clerk. He further deposed that in the morning Sh. K.N. Yaksh used to give the trunk containing drafts to Smt. Santosh Narang for its issuance to the customers. In the evening, Smt. Santosh Narang used to hand over unissued drafts back to Sh. Yaksh, Draft Issuing Incharge. He further deposed that in the evening, Messenger appellant Dalip Singh was asked to keep the trunk in the strong room and at that time Sh. Yaksh was in the field. He specified the date of incident as 10.9.1992 and that missing of drafts came to their knowledge on 11.9.1992 when box was opened. 11 PW29 Smt. Santosh Narang who was posted as Clerk in SBI, Faridabad, deposed that drafts bearing Nos.995826 to 995850 were being utilized in the said branch. She further deposed C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 7 of 16 that draft No.995826 was issued and entry was made vide Ex.PW29/A. Thereafter, remaining blank drafts Nos.995827 to 995850 were stolen. She used to receive drafts book from Sh. Yaksh and after using the requisite leaves of drafts, she used to return the same to Sh. Yaksh.
12 PW16 Sh. T.M. Gulati, the then Chief Manager, SBI, Faridabad, stated that on 10.9.1992, he saw the tin box containing drafts in question in locked condition. He asked A.K. Saxena, Assistant Manager to keep the box in strong room and he sent appellant Dalip Singh, messenger, who kept it in strong room. On 11.9.1992, he was informed by Mr. Yaksh that one draft book was missing from the tin box.
13 From the evidence of PW2 Sh. S.C. Dhingra, PW29 Smt. Santosh Narang and PW16 Sh. T.M.Gulati, it stood established that on 10.9.1992, box containing drafts in question was handed over to appellant Dalip Singh and he alone put the same in the strong room. From the statement of PW29 Smt. Santosh Narang, it is also established that drafts in question were blank and unused. It proves that box was in the exclusive custody of appellant Dalip Singh and he was having full control over the same. PW2 has also deposed C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 8 of 16 that the missing of drafts came to their knowledge on the very next day morning which shows that the drafts in question were stolen from the box which was in the custody of appellant Dalip Singh and none else. It is not the case of appellant that Dalip Singh that he was not handed over box containing drafts in question on the fateful day and he kept the same in the strong room alone. In this way, prosecution has successfully established that the appellant Dalip Singh was involved in the stealing of blank drafts from the Bank. 14 PW3 Sh. K.K. Mehta, Officer of Punjab and Sind Bank identified appellant Anwinder Singh as he opened an account in his bank in the name of Manjeet Singh and deposited/withdrew money from the said account several times. PW4 Sh. K.V. Rao, Assistant Manager of Syndicate Bank, Tilak Nagar has deposed that an account was opened in the name of Manjeet Singh introduced by Deepak Kumar. In the said account, draft No.995837 was deposited for a sum of Rs.1,46,000/. PW32 Sh. Deepak Kumar deposed that he introduced Manjeet Singh in opening account in Syndicate Bank. It is consistent case of CBI that appellant Awninder Singh impersonated as Manjeet Singh and got opened the said bank account. PW4 has further deposed that an account was also opened in the C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 9 of 16 name of Balvinder Singh whose specimen handwriting has been identified by PW32 Deepak Kumar as of appellant Sukhdev Singh. PW4 further stated that draft No.995848 amounting to Rs. 2 lacs, draft No.995847 amounting to Rs.2 lacs, draft No.995849 amounting to Rs.1,80,000/, draft No.995845 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/ and draft No.995846 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/ were deposited in the said account and money was withdrawn.
15 PW5 Sh. P.C.Arora, Manager of Punjab National Bank, Tilak Nagar deposed that an account was opened in the name of Manjeet Singh and draft No.995835 amounting to Rs.1,65,000/ was deposited in the said account and money was withdrawn. 16 PW6 Sh. S.S. Kochar, Accountant of SBI, Khayala Branch deposed that draft No.995839 amounting to Rs.1,46,000/ was deposited in the account No.13033 of Manjeet Singh and later on money was withdrawn. PW11 Naveen Kumar identified appellant Anwinder Singh as Manjeet Singh whom he introduced for opening the said bank account. PW7 Sh. Dharam Parkash, Official of SBI, Tilak Nagar, deposed that account No.25636 was opened in the name of Manjeet Singh and a draft No.995838 amounting to Rs.1,20,000/ was deposited in the said account and C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 10 of 16 later on money was withdrawn from the same.
17 PW15 Sh. Mehar Singh, official of Oriental Bank of Commerce deposed that account No.9206 was opened in the name of Paramjeet Singh in which draft No.995844 amounting to Rs.1,70,000/ was deposited and later on amount was withdrawn from said account. Similarly, officials of other banks have also deposed that accused Sukhdev Singh and Anwinder Singh opened accounts in fictitious names on bogus addresses. PW12 Sh Dedar Singh deposed that appellant Sukhdev Singh who impersonated as Balwinder Singh and got opened account in the bank, never resided as tenant in his house. PW13 Sh. Chaman Lal also deposed on similar lines that appellant Anwinder Singh who impersonated as Paramjit Singh never resided as tenant in his house. From the account opening forms in the name of Paramjit Singh (appellant Anwinder Singh) and in the name of Balwinder Singh (appellant Sukhdev Singh) with respective banks, it is established that they impersonated themselves and fabricated documents with regard to opening of accounts in different banks in which stolen drafts in question were deposed and later on got them encashed.
18 The aforesaid position clearly establishes that C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 11 of 16 drafts in question were stolen by appellant Dalip Singh while entering into criminal conspiracy with appellants Sukhdev Singh and Anwinder Singh. It is settled law that conspiracies are hatched in the pitch dark secrecy and security planned and direct evidence of those are hardly available. In this respect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in case titled Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi Versus State of Maharashtra (reported in 1980 SCC (Cri.) 493) that it is manifest that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design which has been amply proved by the prosecution as found as a fact by the High Court.
19 In the present case from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it established that drafts were stolen by appellant Dalip Singh and same drafts were got encashed by appellants Sukhdev Singh and Anwinder Singh by committing forgery on the said drafts in the name of bank officials. CFSL reports coupled with statements of Forensic Experts PW49 Sh. S.K.Saxena and PW50 Sh. J.K. Saimwal corroborates allegations committing forgery on the C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 12 of 16 drafts/documents.
20 It has been argued on behalf of appellants that appellant Dalip Singh was not having any link with appellants Sukhdev Singh or Anwinder Singh. Had it been so, the drafts stolen by appellant Dalip Singh could not reach to the hands of appellants Sukhdev Singh and Anwinder. On the contrary, the prosecution from the evidence adduced, has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that drafts were stolen by appellant Dalip Singh and then he handed over the same to his associates Sukhdev Singh and Anwinder Singh who after committing forgery on certain documents and drafts, got them encashed and thereby committed cheating with the banks. In this scenario, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has duly proved that appellant Dalip Singh hatched a criminal conspiracy with appellants Sukhdev Singh and Anwinder Singh for committing theft of drafts and getting them encashed by forging documents with a view to cheat banks.
21 It has been argued by the learned counsels for the appellants that there are several material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses and therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal on the benefit of doubt. I am not C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 13 of 16 agreeable with the contention of learned counsels for the appellants. Firstly, in the memorandum of appeals, no such contradictions have been specified. Secondly, after going through the testimony of witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the contradictions, if any, are minor in nature which are bound to occur due to passage of time. Contradictions, if any, have not been pointed out which go to the root of the matter and discredit the case set up by the prosecution. 22 In State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash, AIR 2007 SC 2257 ; State Vs. Saravanan and Others, AIR 2009 SC 152 and Prithu @ Prithvi Chand and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 588, it is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 14 of 16 and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. In the present case, no material contradictions have been pointed out by the learned counsels. Even otherwise, the contradictions, if any are not as such which could go to the root of the case. So, there is no force in this contention. 23 In view of aforementioned evidence and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is hereby held that impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.9.2006 and consequent order on sentence dated 5.10.2006 are based on cogent and convincing evidence and proper appreciation thereof. No ground is made out by the appellants which could call for any interference either in judgment of conviction or order on sentence. Same are accordingly upheld. Resultantly, appeals are hereby dismissed. C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 15 of 16 24 Since the appeals stand dismissed, appellants, namely, Dalip Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Anwinder Singh, be taken into custody to serve the sentences awarded by Ld. Trial Court. 25 Copy of the order along with Trial Court record be sent to the court concerned. A copy of the order be supplied to appellants free of cost. A copy of the order be placed in the file bearing C.A. No.13/06 and C.A. No.14/06.
Appeal files be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 13.12.2010 District Judge (East)
Addl. Sessions Judge
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
C.A.No.12/06, 13/06 & 14/06 Dalip Singh etc. vs CBI Page 16 of 16